"Welfare is a luxury we can't
afford"

The front page newspaper headlines on March 27th, 1998 (following
the UK government's announcement of welfare reforms) were
as follows:

"WELFARE
WAR ON WORKSHY"(Daily
Mail)"THOU SHALT NOT SHIRK"(The Express)"BLAIR IN WELFARE WAR ON THE IDLE"(Daily
Telegraph)"SHAKE-UP IN WELFARE HITS THE WORKSHY"(The
Times)

Blaming "spiralling" welfare costs on the "workshy"
is a common theme of newspapers such as the Daily Mail.
It's usually accompanied by the fallacy that welfare is the
single biggest drain on the economy.

Fortunately, there are some exceptions to this position in
the media. For example, Larry Elliot, writing in the Guardian
(19/1/98):

"..ministers should stop conniving
in the fallacy that the welfare state is in a terminal crisis
when it palpably is not...What is not legitimate is to pretend
that welfare is a luxury Britain cannot afford".

Welfare spending isn't spiralling out of control. As Elliot
pointed out [in 1998], during the previous 18 years welfare
spending rose, relative to GDP, by only 2.5%  a small
amount, given an ageing population, two recessions and the
increased demands for healthcare of the chronically stressed
and overworked.

The annual cost of welfare in Britain is around £100
billion. The tabloid media blame this high cost on the "workshy",
but most of it goes on contribution-based pensions:

The main additions to recent welfare spending have been benefits
to people with jobs (which have been given the label
"tax credits"). That's because wages at
the low end of the market have fallen in real terms over the
last 25 years. The "competitive labour market" has
kept wages so low that many can't survive without state-funded
supplements to their wages.